Poland’s interpretation of EU waste regulations has sparked controversy in the ELV recycling sector, requiring additional permits for Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs). Industry leaders argue this contradicts EU norms, creating uncertainty and potential disruptions. Marta Witkowska and Adam Małyszko FORS Association examines the regulatory dispute and its broader European implications.
The dispute centers on whether Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs) for end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) must obtain additional permits under Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions, which the Polish Government is enforcing but which FORS strongly contests.
At the heart of the issue is the definition of ‘physico-chemical treatment’ outlined in Annex I, point 5.1(b) of Directive 2010/75/EU. The Polish authorities argue that ATFs engaging in such treatment and processing over 10 tons of ELVs daily or storing more than 50 tons before dismantling must secure an integrated permit under the directive. However, Adam Małyszko, the President of FORS Association, Poland’s leading ATF organization, disputes this classification, asserting that ATFs conduct only physical treatment for ELVs, which is the dismantling of waste and spare parts, no chemical processes are involved, which means that the above limits do not apply.
Complicating matters further is the interplay between Directive 2010/75/EU and Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, which governs disposal and recovery operations. While Annex I, point 5.1 of Directive 2010/75/EU references waste management activities requiring permits, it does so without explicitly linking these activities to the codified D (disposal) and R (recovery) processes outlined in Directive 2008/98/EC. This gap in legal clarity has fueled the dispute, leaving Polish ATFs in regulatory limbo.
The European Dimension
The European Commission has been called upon to clarify this regulatory inconsistency, as Poland’s stance diverges from the approach taken in other EU Member States. If left unanswered, this discrepancy could lead to an uneven playing field in ELV management across Europe, placing an undue regulatory burden on Polish ATFs. At the same time, their counterparts elsewhere operate without similar constraints.
Marta Witkowska emphasizes that the provision of Article 15 of the draft ELV Regulation, also in the scope of permits for ATFs, is not precise and refers to the Directive on industrial emissions.
Article 15 (1)
Without prejudice to Directive 2010/75/EU, any establishment or undertaking that intends to carry out treatment operations on end-of-life vehicles shall obtain a permit from the competent authority in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2008/98/EC and shall comply with the conditions laid down in that permit.
The pivotal question is:
Does Article 15 (1) of the draft Regulation on circularity requirements for vehicle design and on the management of end-of-life vehicles, COM/2023/451, should be read as the obligation for ATFs with the ability to dismantle over 10 tons of ELVs per day or with the ability to store over 50 tons of ELVs, to obtain permits under the Directive 2010/75/EU?
The Business Impact
For ATFs, the stakes are high. If Poland’s interpretation prevails, facilities processing over 10 tons of ELVs daily or storing more than 50 tons before dismantling could face costly permit requirements. This could lead to significant delays in processing ELVs, increased administrative burdens, and potential facility closures.
The broader consequence is a disruption to Europe’s circular economy ambitions. ELV recycling plays a crucial role in sustainable vehicle disposal, ensuring that valuable materials are recovered and reintegrated into the manufacturing cycle. Additional regulatory hurdles threaten to undermine these efforts, reducing efficiency and increasing costs for recyclers and manufacturers.
Seeking Clarity at the EU Level
FORS has urged the European Commission to intervene. While the Commission cannot provide legally binding interpretations, a formal position at the EU level could encourage Poland to align with the prevailing European approach.
A key point of contention is whether the treatment process carried out at ATFs qualifies as ‘physicochemical treatment’ or whether it should be classified solely as physical dismantling. The Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection in Poland asserts that ATFs fall under the definition of installations requiring permits due to the storage and treatment of hazardous waste. However, FORS argue that Poland is the only country enforcing this interpretation, making European-level clarification essential.
The Future of ELV Management
This case has far-reaching implications beyond Poland. If stricter interpretations of Directive 2010/75/EU gain traction, ATFs across Europe could face increased regulatory scrutiny, potentially reshaping the ELV recycling landscape. On the other hand, if the European Commission confirms that ATFs do not require additional permits, it would reinforce a more standardized, efficient framework for ELV management across the EU.
The resolution of this dispute will determine whether ELV recycling remains a streamlined, effective process or becomes entangled in costly regulatory barriers. The auto recycling industry, policymakers, and environmental authorities must collaborate to ensure that ELV management remains both environmentally responsible and economically viable.
For now, all eyes are on Brussels, as the future of ATFs—and the broader auto recycling industry—hangs in the balance.
The latest information in the case is that EC has confirmed FORS’ position on the matter described. FORS is waiting for a written response from the Polish Government.
